Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

Korean Journal of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 5(65), p. 276-282, 2022

DOI: 10.3342/kjorl-hns.2021.00647

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Surgical Outcomes of Sialendoscopy-Assisted Approaches for Removal of Parotid Gland Stones

Journal article published in 2022 by Yutae Jeon ORCID, Jihoon Choi ORCID, Juha Park ORCID, Young Min Park ORCID, Jae-Yol Lim ORCID
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Question mark in circle
Preprint: policy unknown
Question mark in circle
Postprint: policy unknown
Question mark in circle
Published version: policy unknown
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Background and Objectives With the introduction of sialendoscopy, minimal invasive surgery has become possible for the removal of sialoliths, although sialendoscopic removal of parotid stones remains a surgical challenge. Sialendoscopic stone removal can be differently applied according to the location and size of stones. This study was conducted to evaluate the surgical outcomes of sialaendoscopic stone removal and to provide a strategy for choosing an adequate surgical approach according to the characteristics of parotid stones.Subjects and Method A retrospective study was conducted of 43 patients with parotid sialolithiasis who were treated by sialendoscopic stone removal between March 2017 and January 2021. Surgical techniques were classified into sialendoscopy alone (SA), sialendoscopy-assisted transoral approach (STO), and sialendoscopy-combined retroauricular approach (SRA). The parotid gland stones were categorized by size, location, and multiplicity.Results Of the 43 patients, 13 patients underwent SA, 10 received STO, and 20 were treated with different SRA approaches. The SRA approaches included three distal, seven proximal, and ten intraglandular stone removal cases. The success rate of stone removal was 92% (12 cases) by SA, 90% (9 cases) by STO, and 100% (20 cases) by SRA. In cases of SA and STO, all patients had distant stones except for one who had proximal stones. Postoperative complications including pain, swelling, wound dehiscence, sialocele, duct stricture, and facial palsy mainly occurred in cases treated with SRAs.Conclusion Appropriate use of various sialendoscopy-assisted approaches is mandatory to preserve the gland and minimize surgical complications in patients with different features of parotid gland stones.